ML17205A037

2017/06/29 NRR E-mail Capture - [External_Sender] Draft Oconee Public Meeting Summary

ML17205A037
Person / Time
Site:	Oconee
Issue date:	06/29/2017
From:	Shingleton B Duke Energy Carolinas
To:	Klett A L Plant Licensing Branch II
References
MF9754, MF9755, MF9756
Download: ML17205A037 (7)

Text

1NRR-PMDAPEm ResourceFrom:Shingleton, Boyd <Boyd.Shingleton@duke-energy.com>Sent:Thursday, June 29, 2017 11:25 AMTo:Klett, AudreyCc:Wasik, Christopher J; Baxter, David A

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: Draft Oconee Public Meeting SummaryAttachments:MF9754-56 Oconee Public Meeting Summary _Duke comments.docxFollow Up Flag:Follow upFlag Status:FlaggedAudrey, Thanks for providing us the opportunity to provide comments/clarification on the meeting minutes. We had a few minor comments (attached). I used the MS Word Track changes function.

Boyd Shingleton ONS Regulatory Affairs 864-873-4716 From: Klett, Audrey [1] Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2017 3:08 PM To: Wasik, Christopher J; Shingleton, Boyd

Subject:

Draft Oconee Public Meeting Summary

• • • Exercise caution. This is an EXTERNAL email. DO NOT open attachments or click links from unknown senders or unexpected email. *** Hi Chris, Hi Boyd, Attached is a draft of the meeting summary. It has not gone through NRC management concurrence yet. If you have any comments or clarifications on how I captured what was discussed during the meeting, please let me know. Please also let me know if it contains any proprietary information.

Thanks, Audrey

Hearing Identifier: NRR_PMDA Email Number: 3618 Mail Envelope Properties (CAC754D9D9D69942A847FD9F7B5C231E43F0480B)

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: Draft Oconee Public Meeting Summary Sent Date: 6/29/2017 11:24:36 AM Received Date: 6/29/2017 11:24:42 AM From: Shingleton, Boyd Created By: Boyd.Shingleton@duke-energy.com Recipients: "Wasik, Christopher J" <Christopher.Wasik@duke-energy.com> Tracking Status: None "Baxter, David A" <David.Baxter@duke-energy.com>

Tracking Status: None "Klett, Audrey" <Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov> Tracking Status: None Post Office: IMCLTEXCP61.nam.ent.duke-energy.com Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 914 6/29/2017 11:24:42 AM MF9754-56 Oconee Public Meeting Summary _Duke comments.docx 37790

Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date: Recipients Received: Follow up

LICENSEE: Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC FACILITY: Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY OF JUNE 27, 2017, MEETING WITH DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC TO DISCUSS PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST FOR OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 REGARDING THERMAL MARGIN FOR THE STANDBY SHUTDOWN FACILITY (CAC NOS. MF9754, MF9755, AND MF9756)

On June 27, 2017, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff held a Category 1 public meeting with representatives from Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (the licensee) at NRC Headquarters, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss a proposed license amendment request regarding thermal margin for the Standby Shutdown Facility (SSF) at the Oconee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Oconee). The meeting notice and agenda, dated June 14, 2017, are available in NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System under Accession No. ML17165A377. A list of attendees and the meeting presentation material are enclosed. The licensee gave a presentation of its planned license amendment request to modify the Oconee Updated Final Safety Analysis Report (UFSAR). Enclosure 2 of this meeting summary contains the presentation slides, proposed UFSAR changes, and other background information that the licensee provided to the staff. The licensee gave a brief overview of the purpose and requirements of the SSF. The licensee explained that during a review of the SSF in 2011, it identified that an unanalyzed condition exists during some limited operating conditions that exist during startup and shutdown (i.e., in conditions involving lower decay heat or low RCS temperature and high decay heat) in plant modes when operability of the SSF is required by Technical Specifications. During those conditions, one of the UFSAR success criteria for use of the SSF cannot be met, and the licensee has to declare the SSF inoperable per its Technical Specifications. The licensee proposed to use previously approved thermal-hydraulic methodologies to justify revising the UFSAR success criteria to permit water solid conditions in the pressurizer without water relief through the pressurizer safety valves and to credit RCS ambient losses, and RCS makeup, and letdown (after plant modifications to enhance letdown capability) for decay heat removal. The licensee also stated that it wishes to use operation of atmospheric dump valves, when available, to enhance SSF event mitigation. The licensee also discussed plant modifications to support SSF capability during a turbine building flooding event. The licensee stated that it was not proposing any changes to the Technical Specifications, including those for the atmospheric dump valves.

The staff asked the licensee questions about its ability to safely shut down the plant during water solid conditions in the reactor coolant system and whether pressurizer safety relief valves were qualified for liquid discharge. The staff also asked the licensee how it intends to use thermal-hydraulic analyses in its justification of the proposed changes. The licensee stated that thermal-hydraulic analyses would be performed using NRC-approved RETRAN-3D models for Oconee, and that the RELAP5/MOD2-B&W analysis will serve as a benchmark of the RETRAN-3D analyses. The intent of the benchmark is to provide additional support for RETRAN-3D analyses that result in water-solid conditions in the pressurizer. The licensee stated it would support a staff audit of such analyses if as needed. The staff also asked the licensee whether the bases for any technical specifications requirements (e.g., limiting conditions for operation, surveillance requirements, or completion times) would be affected by the proposed changes.

The licensee plans to submit its license amendment request in August 2017 and request the staff to complete its review in 12 to 18 months from the submittal date. The staff will provide its projected review schedule as part of its acceptance review of the submittal. The staff did not make any regulatory decisions or commitments at the meeting. No members of the public were in attendance at the meeting nor announced over the telephone.

Any inquiries can be directed to Ms. Audrey Klett at 301-415-0489 or Audrey.Klett@nrc.gov.

Audrey Klett, Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch II-1 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-289

Enclosures:

1. List of Attendees

2. Meeting Presentation Material cc w/encls: Distribution via Listserv

ML17179A347 *by email OFFICE DORL/LPL2-1/PM DORL/LPL2-1/LA DSS/SRXB/BC* DSS/SNPB/BC* NAME AKlett KGoldstein EOesterle RLukes DATE / /17 / /17 / /17 / /17 OFFICE DSS/SBPB/BC* DSS/STSB/BC (A)* DORL/LPL2-1/BC DORL/LPL2-1/PMNAME RDennig JWhitman MMarkley AKlett DATE / /17 / /17 / /17 / /17 Enclosure 1 LIST OF ATTENDEES JUNE 27, 2017, MEETING WITH DUKE ENERGY CAROLINAS, LLC OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 PROPOSED LICENSE AMENDMENT REQUEST REGARDING THERMAL MARGIN FOR THE STANDBY SHUTDOWN FACILITY U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Michael T. Markley Eric Oesterle Reed Anzalone Robert Beaton Jerome Bettle Matthew Hamm Audrey Klett, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC Chris Wasik Boyd Shingleton Philip North Greg Byers Adam Bingham David Wilson Dave Baxter Tracy Saville* Mark Handrick*

Scott Thomas*

Jeff Abbott*

Lee Kanipe*

Ken Grayson* Paul Mabry* Tim Brown*

Jeremy Moyer*

• Participated by phone Enclosure 2

Meeting Presentation Material